From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re A.S.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Feb 15, 2012
A133653 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2012)

Opinion

A133653

02-15-2012

In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.S., Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Solano County Super. Ct. No. J41124)

Appellant A.S. was the subject of a petition filed in the San Francisco Juvenile Court, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that he had committed a second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). On October 6, 2011, following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found the allegation of the petition to be true. It ordered the matter transferred to A.S.'s county of residence, Solano County, for disposition. On October 28, 2011, following a dispositional hearing, the Solano County Juvenile Court adjudged A.S. a ward of the court and placed him in the custody of his parents under the supervision of the probation department.

Assigned counsel has submitted a Wende brief, certifying that counsel has been unable to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also has submitted a declaration confirming that A.S. has been advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any points which he wishes to call to the court's attention. No supplemental brief has been submitted. As required, we have independently reviewed the record. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110.)

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

We find no arguable issues and therefore affirm.

B ACKGROUND

The testimony presented at the jurisdictional hearing was as follows. On August 27, 2011, at approximately 9:30 to 9:50 p.m., Francisco Gongora got off a bus in the area of Gilman and Hawes Street in San Francisco. A.S. confronted Gongora on the street and ordered Gongora to give him everything Gongora had. A.S. threatened to pull out a gun if Gongora refused. Gongora initially told A.S. that he did not have anything and started walking away. A.S. followed him and then grabbed Gongora's backpack from his shoulders. Gongora did not see a gun, but A.S. said that he had one. Gongora believed A.S. and was frightened. Gongora's work uniform, glasses, and some papers were inside the backpack. After grabbing the backpack, A.S. demanded Gongora's telephone and wallet. Gongora gave A.S approximately $10 from his wallet. A.S. ran away as other people approached. The entire encounter lasted 15 to 20 minutes. Gongora said that his assailant's eyes looked "Chinese," and that his hair came halfway down his back. He believed the robber was about five feet seven inches tall.

On September 7, 2011, Gongora saw A.S. again on the bus. A.S was wearing the same clothing as on the night of the robbery (a black sweatshirt and black pants). Gongora called the police, who arrived a few minutes later and subsequently arrested A.S. Gongora was certain that he had identified the right person. He again identified A.S. as his assailant in court.

A.S. testified on his own behalf and denied having robbed Gongora. A.S. said his height was six feet. A.S. claimed that he made money gambling and playing dice on the street and did not need to rob people. Mitchell Eisen, Ph.D., testified as an expert on the weaknesses of eyewitness memory. He offered no opinion as to the accuracy of the witness identification in this case.

In finding the robbery allegation true, the juvenile court stated, "The Court will note that [A.S.] is distinctive looking. I think it was important that the witness, Mr.—the victim, Gongora, recognized him immediately on the bus." The court confirmed that the offense was a felony and set the maximum term of confinement for the offense at five years.

At the dispositional hearing in Solano County on October 28, 2011, A.S. continued to maintain his innocence of robbing Gongora. A.S.'s parents told the probation officer that A.S. had refused to move with them from San Francisco to Vallejo in May 2011, and that prior to his arrest, he lived with random friends in San Francisco. The initial report from the Solano County Probation Department alleged that A.S. had been "running the streets for four months prior to his arrest, in the company of his clique, 'The Black Hoodie Bandits.' " After consideration of the social study, the court adjudged A.S. a ward of the court and placed him in the custody of his parents under the supervision of the probation department, and subject to specific terms and conditions of probation.

This was also A.S.'s testimony at the jurisdictional hearing.

A.S.'s counsel agreed that the conditions of probation recommended by the probation department were appropriate, with the exception for recommended anger management counseling, which the court did not impose.
--------

On November 1, 2011, A.S. filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

We find no arguable issues. A.S was represented by competent counsel throughout the proceedings. The identification of A.S. as perpetrator of the robber was the only contested issue at the jurisdictional hearing. The trial court found the eye-witness identification of A.S. by the victim convincing. " 'The decision of the juvenile court or superior court may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion in its commitment of the minor. A reviewing court must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court, and such findings will not be disturbed on appeal when there is substantial evidence to support them.' [Citation.]" (In re Jose R. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 55, 59-60.) In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, " ' "the power of an appellate court begins and ends with the determination as to whether, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the determination . . . ." ' [Citations.]" (People v. Semaan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 79, 88.)

In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a court's findings, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to see if any rational trier of fact could have been so persuaded. (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 996-997.) It is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of a witness and to resolve evidentiary inconsistencies, and we must defer to the factfinder's credibility resolutions. (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) When differing inferences "can reasonably be deduced from the facts, a reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court," and "it is of no consequence that the trial court believing other evidence, or drawing other reasonable inferences, might have reached a contrary conclusion. [Citations.]" (Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 874.)

A juvenile court's dispositional order may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing the court abused its discretion. " ' "We must indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court and will not disturb its findings when there is substantial evidence to support them." ' [Citation.]" (In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1330.) No error is shown.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_____________

Bruiniers, J.
We concur:

_____________

Jones, P. J.

_____________

Simons, J.


Summaries of

In re A.S.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Feb 15, 2012
A133653 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2012)
Case details for

In re A.S.

Case Details

Full title:In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

Date published: Feb 15, 2012

Citations

A133653 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2012)